When comparing Concrete.js vs Paths.js, the Slant community recommends Paths.js for most people. In the question“What are the best JavaScript drawing libraries?” Paths.js is ranked 21st while Concrete.js is ranked 28th. The most important reason people chose Paths.js is:
Can be used together with a template engine such as Mustache or Handlebars to display SVG graphics or instead of a static template engine, you can use a data binding or MVC/MV* library, such as Ractive.js, Angular, Mithril or Facebook React.
Ranked in these QuestionsQuestion Ranking
Pros
Pro Lightweight framework
The creator of Concrete.js tries to combine most of the features that every HTML5 canvas project needs and packs it all with about 600 lines of JavaScript.
Pro Just helps building graphs, complements template engines or data-binding libraries
Can be used together with a template engine such as Mustache or Handlebars to display SVG graphics or instead of a static template engine, you can use a data binding or MVC/MV* library, such as Ractive.js, Angular, Mithril or Facebook React.
Pro 3 APIs for the price of one
3 APIs of increasing abstraction:
- Low-level (svg paths)
- Basic shapes (Polygon, Rectangle, Bezier, Sector, Connector etc..)
- Basic graphs (Pie, bar, stock, radar, tree, waterfall, sankey etc...)
There is no magic, you can have as much control as you want on how you define your graphs, source code very readable.
Pro Lightweight
18kb minified.